[Pacemaker] Very strange behavior on asymmetric cluster

Carlos G Mendioroz tron at huapi.ba.ar
Mon Mar 21 13:14:22 EDT 2011

Serge Dubrouski @ 21/03/2011 13:49 -0300 dixit:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Carlos G Mendioroz <tron at huapi.ba.ar> wrote:
>> Serge Dubrouski @ 21/03/2011 13:10 -0300 dixit:
>>>> What I am talking about is monitoring (probing) of a resource on a node
>>>> where this resource cannot be exist.
>>> As far as I understand that would require a definition of a "quorum"
>>> node or another special kind of node where resource cannot exist.
>>> Figuring out a a such role from location/collocation rules seems to
>>> complex to me. The idea of quorum node was abandoned by long ago in
>>> favor for some other features/project that Lars mentioned earlier.
>> There is already a location rule, and a minus infinite value.
>> Is that value being used dynamically ? If not, that could be used
>> as a marker for "this (resource) can not possibly run in this node"
>> so monitoring is not necesary ?
> It is used dynamically quite often. For example moving resource out of
> one node creates a such location rule. Does it mean that along with
> moving resource Pacemaker has to stop monitoring it on the left node?
> I don't think so.

Neither do I. That was exactly my precondition :)
Being that the RA absence is dealt with ok (i.e. no need to
install the RA to enable pacemaker to do what it needs) then I feel
it's ok anyway.

I've seen many times arguments of the kind "if the admin does this,
then it breaks". I buy no such argument. I'm against systems playing
smarter than admins.

Carlos G Mendioroz  <tron at huapi.ba.ar>  LW7 EQI  Argentina

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list